A Spending Coefficient...

[Abrak]

All the signs that I see are that FFP will fail both because it is quite subjective and almost impossible to implement.

However I dont think that it is very sporting for this game to be totally dominated by money - like the America's cup. i like the concept that clubs are funded by fans and fans determine how much a club can spend etc.. However if one individual can simply replace millions of fans by a cheque book it isnt much fun.

Actually a fairly simple concept that is 'sporting' is that a club should be handicapped by there spend. So for instance in order to win the league a club that spends 300m needs to score more points than a club that spends 100m. It should not be a total burden - a club wouldnt have to score 3x as many points - but perhaps 10% more or maybe 15% more (for 3x the spend.) It would also make the relegation battle fairer.

This would not help Liverpool (apart from 08/09). United would still come top most years. Spurs might have won a Premiership, Arsenal would have done better. Swansea would not get relegated. And City can still win the PL but they would need to do it by 7 or 8 points. Money will always play a huge part in this game. But it should not be based on he who spends the most wins (that is not a money game.) The clubs that are more efficient with their spend should be rewarded.

As a system it would be incredibly simple to implement. All clubs report their cost structure and you simply apply a coefficient - say 1.3x for Blackpool with 50m spend and 0.8x for City with 350m spend.

[Abrak]

BTW if the concept sounds too foreign to people I think people believe in it inherently. First of all you know that this game is all about money. What most people dont accept is the extent it is all about money.

Secondly say Spurs fans are proud of their efficiency of the use of money. Our team didnt cost much etc. However efficiency is finite and money is not so unless you put a cost on spend in footballing terms, the value of efficiency is effectively zero in the long run. Bo always makes a very valid point about FFP which is that it is not 'fair' because your costs are determined by your revenues so that clubs with small revenues will never compete. And small clubs have a higher cost on generating revenue. For instance the cost of United getting 25m shirt sponsorship is zero.

The concept of a 'money coefficient' is incredibly efficient in terms of handicapping money in the game essentially 'the marginal utility of money declines as you increase spend' as the 'cost per point increases'.

Money is the most destructive and constructive forces known to man. But money is on the road to destroying football. If Mansour wishes to build a club that wins 15 of the next 20 PL he has the financial resources to do so. It is a very simple equation while the marginal utility of money in football declines it will never hit zero. So all you need is money. The problem is this is an axiom and until people realize it they think they are involved in a sport. Just how many matches has Mansour turned up to?

[JacknDanny]

BTW if the concept sounds too foreign to people I think people believe in it inherently. First of all you know that this game is all about money. What most people dont accept is the extent it is all about money.

Secondly say Spurs fans are proud of their efficiency of the use of money. Our team didnt cost much etc. However efficiency is finite and money is not so unless you put a cost on spend in footballing terms, the value of efficiency is effectively zero in the long run. Bo always makes a very valid point about FFP which is that it is not 'fair' because your costs are determined by your revenues so that clubs with small revenues will never compete. And small clubs have a higher cost on generating revenue. For instance the cost of United getting 25m shirt sponsorship is zero.

The concept of a 'money coefficient' is incredibly efficient in terms of handicapping money in the game essentially 'the marginal utility of money declines as you increase spend' as the 'cost per point increases'.

Money is the most destructive and constructive forces known to man. But money is on the road to destroying football. If Mansour wishes to build a club that wins 15 of the next 20 PL he has the financial resources to do so. It is a very simple equation while the marginal utility of money in football declines it will never hit zero. So all you need is money. The problem is this is an axiom and until people realize it they think they are involved in a sport. Just how many matches has Mansour turned up to?

You must have an asbestos ars, with the amount of sh!t you come out with!!

What has turning up to games got to do with whether or not you are a fan?? I have lived over here for 12 years, the only game I have 'turned up' at was Wembley!! Does that mean I am not a fan??

What has the fact that Mansour has attended few games got to do with his financial support of the club??

[Abrak]

There are two problems with Mansour. One is economics - economics is about the efficient allocation of limited resources. The problem with Mansour from an economic perspective is that he is so rich that money has no real value to him. Imagine going to a match costing 50 quid a ticket you would only go if you got 50 quid of value. So would Mansour. However for you that might be one hour's work and for him it might be a 1000th of a second. Anyway I have a fundamental economic philosophy that 250m quid funded by a support base has a lot more value than 250m pounds provided by Mansour.

The second major problem is that football is no longer a sport but a game that by definition Mansour wins. You see 'spend' equals 'points' - the more you spend the more points you will get and the team with the most points wins. Therefore by definition the winner is the player with the lowest cost of capital. As Mansours cost of capital is approximately zero he will simply spend until he wins. Money for nothing and the cups are free.

He who spends enough wins isnt sport it is simply an incredibly stupid game. Say City and United both spend 300m and City come second by 5 points. All City really need to do is increase their spending to 450m and as United cant afford large losses City will win. So instead of trying to prevent the Mansours of this world from spending as much as they want why not handicap spending. So if you spend a lot more you need to generate more points to win.

In fantasy football noone is allowed unlimited funds. In fact everyone usually starts with the same funds. I am merely suggesting that you can spend as much as you like but in order to win you have to make 'some' return on the funds.